The Mysterious Missing Word in Peter

I recently did a concordance search for the Greek word ekklesia, the word that is almost always translated “church” in our English New Testaments. I discovered a rather curious fact. I do not want this little nugget of minutiae to be overblown, but I think it is is fascinating to say the least.

The fact is the Greek word is never used in the writings of Peter. The concept of the church is found throughout 1 Peter, although not quite so obvious in 2 Peter. There are probably a number of reasons Peter never used the word ekklesia. There is no hard and fast law that says if a word exists you have to use it. But – considering the theological mountain we have built upon the little word ekklesia, it is at the very least noteworthy that the word never appears in either letter attributed to Peter.

I’m just thinking out loud here – but could it be possible that because Jesus’s pronouncement in Matthew 16:18 was so directed to Peter that he purposefully refused to use the word? Peter’s view of the church is extraordinarily high – in terms of New Testament ecclesiology his is probably the highest. My guess is his omission of the word ekklesia cannot have been accidental (note the frequency with which Paul uses the word, and it is found also in John’s writings, James, and the letter to the Hebrews). Although I would argue Peter intentionally does not use the word, I have no conclusive evidence as to what that intention might have been.

Once again, I am not trying to build a theology on the absence of a term. I am suggesting, however, that maybe, just maybe, we need to pay attention to what is not said, especially when what is said is so emphatic.

Can We Admit We Are Wrong?

Pardon me if the next post or two seem to be vaguely connected, yet seemingly confused. Working through some things here “on the fly,” but hopefully something will make sense.

I am struck by a strange contradiction between our words and our actions. We (and I include myself here, but am speaking generically) praise humility and our ability to admit error and failure. And yet, on a very basic level we never do so. We are always, without exception, 100% correct on every single issue 100% of the time. This, amazingly enough, even though another person claims to be 100% correct, and his opinion (or facts) are diametrically opposed to ours. It is a mathematical miracle. Two completely opposite “truths” which are both correct, even though both completely reject the other. (confused yet?)

I shall start (in good prophetic style) by pointing out the error of someone I disagree with, and then (much more quickly than Amos did) step on my own toes. It is a common belief – nay, mandatory conviction – among most “evangelical” Christians that those who have been redeemed by Christ have been saved “by grace alone through faith alone.” The problem with this conviction is that it is only half true. The apostle Paul himself wrote that we are saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:5, 8). However, the word “alone” simply does not exist in the text. It is an invention of Martin Luther as a hedge against his Roman Catholic opponents. Yet, try to get a good Lutheran (or Reformed) pastor to admit that simple truth. You may get them to admit the word is not present, but you will never get them to admit the concept is also not present. To believe we are saved by grace through faith is to believe Scripture. Add the word “alone” to either concept and you have fundamentally changed the meaning of the text.

Now, for my own toes. How many times have members of the Churches of Christ said that “we speak where the Bible speaks and we are silent where the Bible is silent.” And yet, and yet…

How many times have you also heard that someone who is divorced for a reason other than adultery is “still married in God’s eyes”? How many times have you heard that God created the world in “six 24 hour periods”? How many times have you heard the world is a mere “6,000 years old”? How many times have you heard that if you consume one “drop” of an alcoholic beverage, you are “one drop drunk”? Now, I do not want to aver that any of those statements is wrong on a propositional level. Each may be 100% true. What I DO want to point out is that NONE of the above statements can be found in Scripture. ALL of them are inferences, or deductions, from statements made in Scripture. Thus we SAY we are only going to speak in words mandated by Scripture, and then we build entire theologies and moral structures on ideas that are NOT in Scripture.

[Self-disclosure: I do believe God created the world in six days (Gen. 1). I do believe divorce is a sin, and that God hates that sin (Malachi 2, Matthew 5, 19, 1 Cor. 7). I do not believe in Darwinistic evolution, and I am most assuredly not promoting the practice of social drinking. I merely pointed these statements out because they appear to me to be some of the most egregious “speaking where the Bible does not speak” – at least in explicit terminology. This is where I can agree in principle, and yet still disagree with the language, and sometimes the motivations, of some of my brothers and sisters in Christ.]

Suffice it to say that I have been tripped up enough by my own self-righteous prattle to know that ANY deduction made from Scripture needs to be put under a dispassionate microscope. There has only been one person who lived in perfect unity with God the Father, and that was his Son Jesus. There is only one perfect description of the true and unchangeable will of God, and that is the Bible. All other humans, and all the most deeply studied understandings of that Bible are flawed in some degree or another. To deny that fact is the ultimate in human arrogance.

Simply put, no human can ever be 100% correct about every question or be 100% knowledgeable about every single verse of every chapter of every book in the Bible. Even that which we think we know about the text of the Bible must be re-examined in light of more recent discoveries concerning language, geography, and biblical history.

I do not want anyone to think that I am promoting some post-modern “there is no truth” or “truth is all relative” intellectual garbage. I most assuredly believe there is ultimate truth, and to the extent that God desires that we know it, we as humans can know it, and should strive to learn it.

But Ecclesiastes 5:1-3 scares me, and as one who earns his living by speaking (and writing) words, I believe I am bound to a very precious calling, and I do not take that calling lightly.

Theology Matters

In my last post I made what some might consider a rather harsh statement: that certain books that speak of a god and spirituality are not worth the paper they are written on. A kind reader asked why I should think thus. It was a fair question and a good one. I felt a brief answer was not enough, so here, in an extended response, are my thoughts as to why I have such visceral responses to theological pablum.

In a phrase: theology matters. Good theology, healthy theology, sound theology – all of these are critical for a sound, healthy, spiritual life. If you eat healthy food chances are you will remain healthy. Eat garbage every day, all day long, and sooner or later you will get sick or die. My issue with certain books that are huge best sellers but contain only theological junk is that their very popularity masks their emptiness. Everybody loves Twinkies (and so do I!), but Twinkies are not health food. In the United States we have been inundated with such products lately, from Heaven is for Real and God is Not Dead and most recently, The Shack. Bad theology is not a recent invention, however, as Joseph Smith (no relation, as far as I know) duped millions with his work of theological fiction, The Book of Mormon.

Since that latest buzz focuses on The Shack I will make a few comments here specifically related to that book, but the fundamental flaws of that book are common to many, if not all, of the recent attempts at popular theology.

First, The Shack purports to be a parable, that is, a picture to describe an attribute (or attributes) of God that are not otherwise seen. The problem is the author does not know the difference between a parable and a caricature. The Shack is NOT a parable – it is a caricature in which one aspect of God’s being is so grossly distorted as to make it a farce. When Jesus told a parable about God’s forgiveness or mercy, it was just that – a parable. God remained a God of justice, a God who will make things right through the punishment of sin.

The god of The Shack has done away with punishment of sin. The god of The Shack is all about everyone going to heaven. Like a grandmother who loves all her grandchildren and refuses to punish any, the god of The Shack is basically unable to confront, and is utterly powerless to overcome, evil. Just think of the basic premise – why would any god not punish the killer of a small child (the whole background story of “the shack,” the place where the little girl was murdered)?

The character that represents Jesus in The Shack says that he is the best way to get to this god, but the Jesus of the gospels is the ONLY way to the real God. If you live in the universe of The Shack, it matters not if you are a Christian, a Buddhist, a Muslim, or even a basically moral atheist. All roads lead to “papa,” although if you are willing to accept the Jesus figure you might get to “her” sooner.

Why does this matter? Why can’t I say (as so many have said in so many different venues) “If reading The Shack brings you closer to God, then good for you, and good for The Shack.” Very simply, if you think you have come closer to god through The Shack, you have only come closer to a god of your own making – a false god, an idol. It is not the God of Mt. Sinai, nor of the manger in Bethlehem, and absolutely not the God of calvary.

As evidence, I share two stories from the Old Testament: Exodus 32:1-6 and 1 Kings 12:25-33. In both stories images of calves are formed for the purpose of worshiping God. You have to understand this – the images were used in the worship of YHWH. The context makes this clear. And in both stories the principle architects of the images (Aaron and Jeroboam) are soundly punished for their creation of these “guides to worship.”

Why did God not say, “Well, if the calves bring you closer to me, good on you and good on the calves”? Why punish Aaron, Jeroboam, and all the people who worshiped the calves, especially since they were ostensibly worshiping God? The reason is the calves were NOT God, and by pointing away from the true God, the calves were objects of spiritual sickness. They were symbols of rebellion – of rejecting the one true God.

Why do I object to theological fictions such as The Shack, God is Not Dead, and Heaven is for Real? Because at their core they are golden calves. The authors (and the millions of people who are mesmerized by them) may have good intentions, but their theology is base, it is corrupt, and it is corrupting.

If a person thinks that he or she is coming closer to God by reading any of these books (or seeing the movies), what happens when he or she reads of the true God in Scripture? What happens when the person reads that God hates sin, that God is a just judge, and will punish those who rebel against him, and especially those who kill little girls? What happens when the person discovers that God hates charlatans and those who seek to build wealth and fame from peddling false ideas about Him and his creation? At that point the person will either have to reject the comfortable, impotent, beggarly god of these works of fiction, or he or she will have to reject the God of Scripture. The two are not inches apart – they are light years apart.

There are great works of fictional literature which point to the God of Scripture. C.S. Lewis comes immediately to mind. I am not against fictional works that praise and glorify God. I would not even object to a caricature of God if the work is clearly identified as such (George Burns in O God comes to mind – no one thought THAT was serious theology, but the story did have a good point).

In some ways I hate to be so negative. I would be much more popular if I preached what these books claim to say about God. I just have one problem in doing so.

It’s not good theology – and theology matters.

Jeremiah 6:16 and Context (A Cautionary Tale)

Embed from Getty Images

 

Very few Old Testament passages hold a position of honor among preachers and teachers within the Churches of Christ. That is due largely to the influence of Alexander Campbell and his “Sermon on the Law.” From Campbell’s day forward his heirs have solidly proclaimed the New Testament as the book of the church, and some would even narrow that to Acts – Jude (Revelation being much too dangerous to handle).

Very few, but not none. One passage that ranks in importance just slightly lower than Acts 2:38 and Romans 16:16 is Jeremiah 6:16. This verse is the bulwark that protects many favored traditions, and more distressingly, the failures of many in past generations. Whenever the discussion becomes too edgy or uncomfortable, Jeremiah 6:16 is a safe and constant refuge. I was reminded just recently of what a powerful hold this verse has on many. It should – but not perhaps for the reason that they think it should. I come this day not to bury Jeremiah 6:16, but to honor it for the powerful text that it truly is in its context.

This post could easily end up in the thousands of words long. For simplicity I will try to abbreviate as much as possible. To cut to the chase, in order to understand Jeremiah 6:16 we really need to back up to chapter 2. In a lengthy and sometimes dense argument, the LORD (through Jeremiah) accuses both Israel and Judah of gross idolatry and moral decay. In a plaintive cry that summarizes much of the entire book, the LORD asks,

Has a nation changed its gods, even though they are no gods? But my people have changed their glory for that which does not profit. Be appalled, O heavens, at this; be shocked, be utterly desolate, declares the LORD, for my people have committed two evils: they have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and hewed out cisterns for themselves, broken cisterns that can hold no water. (Jer. 2:11-13, ESV)

Central to the accusations that the LORD makes against his chosen people are two related actions. One, they repeatedly ally themselves with foreign nations instead of depending on God for protection and deliverance (2:17-18), and two, they participate in the worship of those nations’ idols, figuratively described as sexual fornication/adultery (3:6-10).

In spite of these transgressions, the LORD still holds out forgiveness to the people, if they will but return to him:

Return, faithless Israel, declares the LORD. I will not look on you in anger, for I am merciful, declares the LORD; I will not be angry forever. Only acknowledge your guilt, that you rebelled against the LORD your God and scattered your favors among foreigners under every green tree, and that you have not obeyed my voice, declares the LORD. Return, O faithless children, declares the LORD; for I am your master; I will take you, one from every city and two from a family, and I will bring you to Zion. (Jer. 3:12-14 ESV)

Pure and faithful worship, however, must be accompanied by pure and faithful behavior:

If you return, O Israel, declares the LORD, to me you should return. If you remove your detestable things from my presence, and do not waver, and if you swear ‘As the LORD lives’ in truth, in justice, and in righteousness, then nations shall bless themselves in him, and in him shall they glory (Jer. 4:1-2, ESV)

Run to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, look and take note! Search her squares to see if you can find a man, one who does justice and seeks truth, that I may pardon her (Jer. 5:1 ESV)

Particularly galling to the LORD is the behavior of his prophets and priests:

For from the least to the greatest of them, everyone is greedy for unjust gain; and from prophet to priest everyone deals falsely. They have healed the wound of my people lightly, saying, ‘Peace, peace,’ when there is no peace. (Jer. 6:13-14 ESV, see also 1:8, 2:26-28, 5:30-31)

That leads us then to the verse in question, Jer. 6:16:

Thus says the LORD: ‘Stand by the roads, and look, and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is; and walk in it, and find rest for your souls.’ But they said, ‘We will not walk in it.’ (ESV)

As should be clear by now, the LORD is not, and Jeremiah is not, urging the Israelites to return to some pristine time of their history. He is pleading with them to return to GOD. The “ancient paths” are the practices that demonstrate their allegiance to GOD – truthfulness, justice, righteousness (in Hebrew understanding – doing right). A major component of this “returning” involves confession of sin. And, not to be forgotten, another critical component is the faithfulness and righteousness of the spiritual leaders of the people.

I fear that too many times when I hear Jeremiah 6:16 being quoted, what is intended is a “return” to a “golden age” of the church, invariably the period when the Churches of Christ were growing at an exponential rate during the late 1940’s through the 1970’s. The “ancient paths” are not the rigorous moral and ethical demands of Sinai, but an almost mythical time in which every man “dwelt under the shade of his own vine.” We all want to sing with Archie Bunker, “Those were the days.”

The truth is – just as with Israel and Judah – there never has been this period of utopian perfection! Every text that we have in the New Testament is there as a testimony that someone, somewhere was NOT believing what Jesus taught, or was NOT doing what Jesus commanded. We simply do not have a picture of a perfect church for one simple reason – the church has never existed in perfection. The “ancient paths” do not refer to a time of pristine church practice – either in the first century or the 19th or the 20th. The ancient paths refer to God’s entire law and gospel – both religious (worship) and moral (ethics/behavior).

I most firmly believe that Jeremiah 6:16 needs to be preached from our pulpits and taught in our classes. But – it needs to be preached and taught in context! Applications that are drawn from that text need to be consistent with Jeremiah’s own purpose – as appropriately directed to the church in the 21st century.

Let’s preach it, brothers, – but let’s preach it straight!

Reinterpreting Scripture – An Interesting Parallel

Embed from Getty Images

 

While meditating on a totally unrelated subject recently, a fascinating line of thought occurred to me. There is an obvious (if one takes the time to think about it) process that is followed if and when Scripture needs to be “reinterpreted” or “reimagined” to fit a particular need. My example includes the process of introducing, and then accepting, the practice of infant baptism; and the current process of introducing, and therefore accepting, women into larger and more influential roles of leadership within the church. Notice how this plays out in innocuous, and seemingly innocent ways.

First, there is an existential crisis – a challenge to the “status quo” of accepted orthodoxy. In regard to infant baptism, it was the death of infants and children first considered too young to be candidates for baptism. What of their eternal destiny? If the door to eternal life hinged on baptism, and they died unbaptized, how could anyone be certain of their eternal rest with God? With the current question of women’s role in the church, the issue has been joined with the role that women have in secular society. Women serve with distinction in every level of life, from governmental to financial to education to public service. Why, then, deny them leadership roles in the church?

Second, the Scriptures are scoured to find and answer that permits a “reinterpretation” or a “re-imagining” of the previously held standard. Ergo, stories of entire “households” being converted and baptized are viewed as evidence that quite possibly, and even probably, children and infants were baptized because virtually every “household” includes children. Similarly, passages such as 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 and Galatians 3:27-28 are suddenly transformed not only to allow, but to mandate, a role of leadership for women in the church. These passages then become proof-texts (passages lifted from their context to prove a point that is tangential to their original meaning, at best), and passages that conflict with the “new” interpretation are dismissed if not entirely excised from the discussion.

Third, a new theology then develops from the first two steps. History is revised to emphasize aberrations from the norm, and the greater part of church history is repudiated with emotionally or theologically laden terms which amount to ad hominem attacks or straw-man arguments. This is not to argue that there were not groups in the first few centuries that baptized infants, nor that there were no groups that had women in influential roles. It is simply to argue that these fringe groups are re-cast as models of orthodoxy, and the larger practice of the church is re-cast as aberrant.

The final step is then not only logical, but inescapable. Those sympathetic to the “new orthodoxy” are described in the most glowing terms, and those who object to the “re-interpretation” or “re-imagining” are vilified. The only true Christians are those who accept infant baptism (because, who would want to send thousands of deceased infants and children to hell?) and those who accept women, or even demand that women serve, in leadership roles (woe to those barbaric, knuckle-dragging troglodytes who revel in their macho, male chauvinism!).

Christians of every age must live in tension with their cultural standards. Some of those standards may be closer to biblical teaching than others. Some may be virtually indistinguishable from biblical standards, while some may be at the opposite end of the spectrum from God’s intent. Ascending to faith through a descent through submission to God’s word demands that we examine each question and each crisis with our eyes (and intellects) wide open, and that we exercise a willingness to reject what the world dictates as something that must be accepted. Christians do not receive our worldview from the pages of the morning paper, but rather from both a broad and deep reading of the inspired Scriptures.

Be careful whose voice you listen to . . . Satan did not stop with his deceptions in the Garden of Eden. His most powerful question is still, “Did God really say . . . ?”